Why on earth are we going ahead with this when oil is at $50? Madness.
Why on Earth? You do know 2016 is the hottest year on record don't you?
So that means which should be subsidising EDF to the tune of billions upon billions? Ifciurse EDF will build it now the fall in wholesale energy means the money they will be receiving from us will make them very rich indeed.
We should instead replace our coal imports with shale gas, and be building the Cardiff bay tidal lagoon. As well as other wind, wave and tidal projects. We are so rich in renewable energy in this country we just need to harness it. And create thousands of jobs here not France.
We've already exhausted all the prime spots for onshore wind farms, for example:
While I conceded the price does seem on the high side, nuclear should play an important role in providing baseline output. I'm only disappointed we aren't building more so we have a much more nuclear-heavy mix like France.
We can build more in Scotland though.
I assume that it is being done, where economically viable. My point was that the low hanging fruit has already been picked.
Yes they don't mind F****ing Scotland up and charging us a fortune for the grid. That scam will be gone soon when we give the two fingers to UK.
Do you object to offshore wind farms? I thought those were sufficiently far away as not to be a bother to anyone.
Offshore wind farms are quite beautiful in my humble opinion. I could spend hours watching the play of light on those off Skegness on a day of broken clouds. They turn a rather flat and boring seascape (on calm days at least) into something magical.
And kill migratory birds. Not as bad as the faster running, smaller-tower wind farms they used to build, but unfortunately where there is sustainable winds, there are bird migration routes.
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Even with Opinium the Tories are up 0.1% on the election, Labour up 0. 6% and the LDs down 2%, UKIP up 2%. Not forgetting the boundary changes in 2018
No - the poll shows GB figures. The Tories are down 0.8% with Labour dropping 0.2%. Tory GB lead down from 6.6% to 6.0%
Well Opinium do occasionally do poll UK wide, thus including Northern Ireland, and the Observer graphic does describe it as a UK wide poll
OK -if I am wrong on this occasion I am happy to bow humbly to HYUFD!
You might also admit that your assumption also might be wrong.
At GE 2015 there was a Con to Lab swing and yet the Tories lead in seats over Labour increased, which was truly awesome when you consider the brilliance of Labour's ground game at GE2015
And Labour had oodles of better algorithms too. This is the 21st century, it's all about the algorithms now.
On holiday. Less than one day in. Cat sitter can't get in at home. Broke tooth. Rain. Arse.
Worse day than me then. Lost my ancient Westie in local woods. Walked so long, hurt my leg again. Ankle is approximately size of grapefruit. No sign of dog. Woe is me.
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Even with Opinium the Tories are up 0.1% on the election, Labour up 0. 6% and the LDs down 2%, UKIP up 2%. Not forgetting the boundary changes in 2018
No - the poll shows GB figures. The Tories are down 0.8% with Labour dropping 0.2%. Tory GB lead down from 6.6% to 6.0%
Well Opinium do occasionally do poll UK wide, thus including Northern Ireland, and the Observer graphic does describe it as a UK wide poll
OK -if I am wrong on this occasion I am happy to bow humbly to HYUFD!
Humble bow accepted, though you can console yourself with the 3 seats Labour would win off the Tories on the Opinium UK swing. Corbyn would at least have gained a seat or two unlike Ed Miliband
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Even with Opinium the Tories are up 0.1% on the election, Labour up 0. 6% and the LDs down 2%, UKIP up 2%. Not forgetting the boundary changes in 2018
No - the poll shows GB figures. The Tories are down 0.8% with Labour dropping 0.2%. Tory GB lead down from 6.6% to 6.0%
Well Opinium do occasionally do poll UK wide, thus including Northern Ireland, and the Observer graphic does describe it as a UK wide poll
OK -if I am wrong on this occasion I am happy to bow humbly to HYUFD!
Humble bow accepted, though you can console yourself with the 3 seats Labour would win off the Tories on the Opinium UK swing. Corbyn would at least have gained a seat or two unlike Ed Miliband
Corbyn better than Miliband. Who'd have thunk it?
On July 22nd 2011, Labour under Miliband were polling 8% ahead of the Conservatives with YouGov.
Currently, at the same stage of the electoral cycle, Labour under Corbyn are polling 11% behind the Conservatives with YouGov.
And, in YouGov polling of Labour members, 54% of the Labour members who support Corbyn think he is likely to lead Labour to victory at the next general election.
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Even with Opinium the Tories are up 0.1% on the election, Labour up 0. 6% and the LDs down 2%, UKIP up 2%. Not forgetting the boundary changes in 2018
No - the poll shows GB figures. The Tories are down 0.8% with Labour dropping 0.2%. Tory GB lead down from 6.6% to 6.0%
Well Opinium do occasionally do poll UK wide, thus including Northern Ireland, and the Observer graphic does describe it as a UK wide poll
OK -if I am wrong on this occasion I am happy to bow humbly to HYUFD!
You might also admit that your assumption also might be wrong.
At GE 2015 there was a Con to Lab swing and yet the Tories lead in seats over Labour increased, which was truly awesome when you consider the brilliance of Labour's ground game at GE2015
In England Labour did make a very small net gain from the Tories. The increase in the Tory lead in seats was due to Labour's collapse in Scotland to the SNP and the big Tory gains from the LibDems.
That graph is based on an analysis by Roy Spencer of UAH of MSU satellite measurements of the radiance of the lower troposphere. These are not direct temperature measurements, and they are not surface temperature measurements. And I'm sure that Richard is aware that such analyses are fraught with difficulty and have been revised multiple times to correct for errors. Interestingly, Dr Spencer refuses to publish the algorithms that he uses to produce his temperature data, while NASA's methods and data are published openly on the internet.
It should also be noted that these satellite readings tend to amplify the effect of El Nino years, so it's not at all surprising that they should be indicating a rapid temperature fall as the current El Nino ends. The surface temperature is falling too, and the next few years are unlikely to set fresh records, but the underlying trend remains upwards.
Sorry but this is just garbage. The exact same effect is seen by the RSS satellite data set run by a completely different organisation and in fact both systems do publish all of their data and have had their algorithms independently checked and verified - by NASA and the NOAA. Given that Spencer actually also works for NASA the comparison is rather... misleading?
Nope, the garbage is yours, as usual.
The RSS data and the UAH data are simply different analyses of the exactly the same MSU measurements. It would therefore be rather surprising if their results weren't similar!
As for having their algorithms independently checked: bollocks. What evidence do you have for such a claim? The analysis that actually has been independently checked is the NASA GISS analysis. These data were completely re-analysed by the Berkeley Earth project, headed by former climate sceptic Richard Muller. His shock conclusion? The NASA GISS analysis is perfectly sound.
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Why on earth are we going ahead with this when oil is at $50? Madness.
Why on Earth? You do know 2016 is the hottest year on record don't you?
So that means which should be subsidising EDF to the tune of billions upon billions? Ifciurse EDF will build it now the fall in wholesale energy means the money they will be receiving from us will make them very rich indeed.
We should instead replace our coal imports with shale gas, and be building the Cardiff bay tidal lagoon. As well as other wind, wave and tidal projects. We are so rich in renewable energy in this country we just need to harness it. And create thousands of jobs here not France.
We've already exhausted all the prime spots for onshore wind farms, for example:
While I conceded the price does seem on the high side, nuclear should play an important role in providing baseline output. I'm only disappointed we aren't building more so we have a much more nuclear-heavy mix like France.
We can build more in Scotland though.
I assume that it is being done, where economically viable. My point was that the low hanging fruit has already been picked.
Yes they don't mind F****ing Scotland up and charging us a fortune for the grid. That scam will be gone soon when we give the two fingers to UK.
Do you object to offshore wind farms? I thought those were sufficiently far away as not to be a bother to anyone.
Offshore wind farms are quite beautiful in my humble opinion. I could spend hours watching the play of light on those off Skegness on a day of broken clouds. They turn a rather flat and boring seascape (on calm days at least) into something magical.
I can't say I feel the same way. I find wind farms impressive from an engineering point of view and pleasing from a utilitarian point of view. I also appreciate their necessary contribution towards maintaining our quality of life without destroying our environment. But visually appealing? Not really, I'm afraid.
BVA French Popularity Poll Juppe 42 (-2) Le Pen 27 (+3) Sarkozy 24 (+4) Valls 24 (-1) Hollande 19 (+1)
Juppe is probably value as the Républicains foresee lots of left candidates eliminated in the first round. You want to give em something that's not just a crap used Le Pen.
That graph is based on an analysis by Roy Spencer of UAH of MSU satellite measurements of the radiance of the lower troposphere. These are not direct temperature measurements, and they are not surface temperature measurements. And I'm sure that Richard is aware that such analyses are fraught with difficulty and have been revised multiple times to correct for errors. Interestingly, Dr Spencer refuses to publish the algorithms that he uses to produce his temperature data, while NASA's methods and data are published openly on the internet.
It should also be noted that these satellite readings tend to amplify the effect of El Nino years, so it's not at all surprising that they should be indicating a rapid temperature fall as the current El Nino ends. The surface temperature is falling too, and the next few years are unlikely to set fresh records, but the underlying trend remains upwards.
Sorry but this is just garbage. The exact same effect is seen by the RSS satellite data set run by a completely different organisation and in fact both systems do publish all of their data and have had their algorithms independently checked and verified - by NASA and the NOAA. Given that Spencer actually also works for NASA the comparison is rather... misleading?
Nope, the garbage is yours, as usual.
The RSS data and the UAH data are simply different analyses of the exactly the same MSU measurements. It would therefore be rather surprising if their results weren't similar!
As for having their algorithms independently checked: bollocks. What evidence do you have for such a claim? The analysis that actually has been independently checked is the NASA GISS analysis. These data were completely re-analysed by the Berkeley Earth project, headed by former climate sceptic Richard Muller. His shock conclusion? The NASA GISS analysis is perfectly sound.
Yet more ill informed rubbish. The algorithms used by both RSS and UAH are checked and verified by NASA, as are the corrections made to the satellite data over time.
That graph is based on an analysis by Roy Spencer of UAH of MSU satellite measurements of the radiance of the lower troposphere. These are not direct temperature measurements, and they are not surface temperature measurements. And I'm sure that Richard is aware that such analyses are fraught with difficulty and have been revised multiple times to correct for errors. Interestingly, Dr Spencer refuses to publish the algorithms that he uses to produce his temperature data, while NASA's methods and data are published openly on the internet.
It should also be noted that these satellite readings tend to amplify the effect of El Nino years, so it's not at all surprising that they should be indicating a rapid temperature fall as the current El Nino ends. The surface temperature is falling too, and the next few years are unlikely to set fresh records, but the underlying trend remains upwards.
Sorry but this is just garbage. The exact same effect is seen by the RSS satellite data set run by a completely different organisation and in fact both systems do publish all of their data and have had their algorithms independently checked and verified - by NASA and the NOAA. Given that Spencer actually also works for NASA the comparison is rather... misleading?
Nope, the garbage is yours, as usual.
The RSS data and the UAH data are simply different analyses of the exactly the same MSU measurements. It would therefore be rather surprising if their results weren't similar!
As for having their algorithms independently checked: bollocks. What evidence do you have for such a claim? The analysis that actually has been independently checked is the NASA GISS analysis. These data were completely re-analysed by the Berkeley Earth project, headed by former climate sceptic Richard Muller. His shock conclusion? The NASA GISS analysis is perfectly sound.
Yet more ill informed rubbish. The algorithms used by both RSS and UAH are checked and verified by NASA, as are the corrections made to the satellite data over time.
What is this? Proof by repeated assertion?
Edit: And what do you mean by verifying an algorithm?
Why on earth are we going ahead with this when oil is at $50? Madness.
Why on Earth? You do know 2016 is the hottest year on record don't you?
So that means which should be subsidising EDF to the tune of billions upon billions? Ifciurse EDF will build it now the fall in wholesale energy means the money they will be receiving from us will make them very rich indeed.
We should instead replace our coal imports with shale gas, and be building the Cardiff bay tidal lagoon. As well as other wind, wave and tidal projects. We are so rich in renewable energy in this country we just need to harness it. And create thousands of jobs here not France.
We've already exhausted all the prime spots for onshore wind farms, for example:
While I conceded the price does seem on the high side, nuclear should play an important role in providing baseline output. I'm only disappointed we aren't building more so we have a much more nuclear-heavy mix like France.
We can build more in Scotland though.
I assume that it is being done, where economically viable. My point was that the low hanging fruit has already been picked.
Yes they don't mind F****ing Scotland up and charging us a fortune for the grid. That scam will be gone soon when we give the two fingers to UK.
Do you object to offshore wind farms? I thought those were sufficiently far away as not to be a bother to anyone.
Offshore wind farms are quite beautiful in my humble opinion. I could spend hours watching the play of light on those off Skegness on a day of broken clouds. They turn a rather flat and boring seascape (on calm days at least) into something magical.
And kill migratory birds. Not as bad as the faster running, smaller-tower wind farms they used to build, but unfortunately where there is sustainable winds, there are bird migration routes.
That is an argument to site them better, not to do away with them completely.
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Even with Opinium the Tories are up 0.1% on the election, Labour up 0. 6% and the LDs down 2%, UKIP up 2%. Not forgetting the boundary changes in 2018
No - the poll shows GB figures. The Tories are down 0.8% with Labour dropping 0.2%. Tory GB lead down from 6.6% to 6.0%
Well Opinium do occasionally do poll UK wide, thus including Northern Ireland, and the Observer graphic does describe it as a UK wide poll
OK -if I am wrong on this occasion I am happy to bow humbly to HYUFD!
You might also admit that your assumption also might be wrong.
At GE 2015 there was a Con to Lab swing and yet the Tories lead in seats over Labour increased, which was truly awesome when you consider the brilliance of Labour's ground game at GE2015
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Even with Opinium the Tories are up 0.1% on the election, Labour up 0. 6% and the LDs down 2%, UKIP up 2%. Not forgetting the boundary changes in 2018
No - the poll shows GB figures. The Tories are down 0.8% with Labour dropping 0.2%. Tory GB lead down from 6.6% to 6.0%
Well Opinium do occasionally do poll UK wide, thus including Northern Ireland, and the Observer graphic does describe it as a UK wide poll
OK -if I am wrong on this occasion I am happy to bow humbly to HYUFD!
Humble bow accepted, though you can console yourself with the 3 seats Labour would win off the Tories on the Opinium UK swing. Corbyn would at least have gained a seat or two unlike Ed Miliband
Corbyn better than Miliband. Who'd have thunk it?
Ed Miliband was done for by Scotland, without it he would still have lost but gained a few more seats than Brown
BVA French Popularity Poll Juppe 42 (-2) Le Pen 27 (+3) Sarkozy 24 (+4) Valls 24 (-1) Hollande 19 (+1)
Juppe is probably value as the Républicains foresee lots of left candidates eliminated in the first round. You want to give em something that's not just a crap used Le Pen.
Juppe would be a better bet than Sarkozy in the general election but Sarkozy's tough law and order message may play better with the Republicains base in the primary
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
The government is wasting taxpayers money subsiding useless renewables.
The government as should other governments should be spending money instead on research on methods of cheap mass storage of electricity. Once that is achieved the renewables will be of use.
Until then you need to duplicate renewables with fossil fuel power stations that fire up when the renewables are offline (eg no wind).
If you have to build the gas and coal stations anyway it is pointless to have the renewables.
The government is wasting taxpayers money subsiding useless renewables.
The government as should other governments should be spending money instead on research on methods of cheap mass storage of electricity. Once that is achieved the renewables will be of use.
Until then you need to duplicate renewables with fossil fuel power stations that fire up when the renewables are offline (eg no wind).
If you have to build the gas and coal stations anyway it is pointless to have the renewables.
I don't think the government needs to research anything. There are plenty of storage systems either on the market or in development. This is a global issue, world + wife would like to solve the problem.
When I finally do downsize, I'm going for a net zero house, just because .
The government is wasting taxpayers money subsiding useless renewables.
The government as should other governments should be spending money instead on research on methods of cheap mass storage of electricity. Once that is achieved the renewables will be of use.
Until then you need to duplicate renewables with fossil fuel power stations that fire up when the renewables are offline (eg no wind).
If you have to build the gas and coal stations anyway it is pointless to have the renewables.
I don't think the government needs to research anything. There are plenty of storage systems either on the market or in development. This is a global issue, world + wife would like to solve the problem.
When I finally do downsize, I'm going for a net zero house, just because .
Name one available and commercially viable (other than Dinorwic).
The government is wasting taxpayers money subsiding useless renewables.
The government as should other governments should be spending money instead on research on methods of cheap mass storage of electricity. Once that is achieved the renewables will be of use.
Until then you need to duplicate renewables with fossil fuel power stations that fire up when the renewables are offline (eg no wind).
If you have to build the gas and coal stations anyway it is pointless to have the renewables.
I don't think the government needs to research anything. There are plenty of storage systems either on the market or in development. This is a global issue, world + wife would like to solve the problem.
When I finally do downsize, I'm going for a net zero house, just because .
Name one available and commercially viable (other than Dinorwic).
Ah, we're slightly at cross purposes. I'm interested in domestic power storage.
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
8000 years is a blink.of an eye. Sea levels can and will change dramatically again in the future. Any policy based on trying to prevent sea level change as opposed to mitigating against it is doomed to failure. Although not directly related to global sea level change New Orleans is a good example of the futility of trying to prevent natural processes I order to protect poorly placed settlements.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
The government is wasting taxpayers money subsiding useless renewables.
The government as should other governments should be spending money instead on research on methods of cheap mass storage of electricity. Once that is achieved the renewables will be of use.
Until then you need to duplicate renewables with fossil fuel power stations that fire up when the renewables are offline (eg no wind).
If you have to build the gas and coal stations anyway it is pointless to have the renewables.
Although intermittent renewable energy sources need to be backed up by, primarily, gas-fired plants, you still save having to burn gas when the wind blows or the sun shines. Granted, you can't eliminate CO2 emissions in this way, but you can reduce them. As storage methods are developed and demand management is implemented, it will be possible to further reduced the amount of fossil fuel that needs to be burned.
The government is wasting taxpayers money subsiding useless renewables.
The government as should other governments should be spending money instead on research on methods of cheap mass storage of electricity. Once that is achieved the renewables will be of use.
Until then you need to duplicate renewables with fossil fuel power stations that fire up when the renewables are offline (eg no wind).
If you have to build the gas and coal stations anyway it is pointless to have the renewables.
I don't think the government needs to research anything. There are plenty of storage systems either on the market or in development. This is a global issue, world + wife would like to solve the problem.
When I finally do downsize, I'm going for a net zero house, just because .
Name one available and commercially viable (other than Dinorwic).
Ah, we're slightly at cross purposes. I'm interested in domestic power storage.
It is megawatt hours of storage I'm on about.
But as someone in the comms industry, if you want large power storage batteries in your house you are welcome to it. Expensive, Large, heavy, bulky, leach hydrogen and of dubious life duration, especially if they are not in temperature controlled conditions - basically a pain in the arse.
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
8000 years is a blink.of an eye. Sea levels can and will change dramatically again in the future. Any policy based on trying to prevent sea level change as opposed to mitigating against it is doomed to failure. Although not directly related to global sea level change New Orleans is a good example of the futility of trying to prevent natural processes I order to protect poorly placed settlements.
It is less than that - the land bridge to europe only went about 6,000 years ago.
Of course as well as sea level changes, various land masses are rising and sinking.
South east England for one is sinking as Scotland rises due to no longer being under a mile of ice
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Theresa May was no more a remainer than Jeremy Corbyn was.
The independent seems to have descended into lala land on the issue though.
Wonder how long it will be before the residual online version bites the dust.
So was just looking now we know the shape of the tickets for November. So Bill Clinton fought two elections with a running mate with a one syllable surname and both elections the other ticket was made up of two one syllable surnames Bush-Quayle in 92 and Dole-Kemp in 96. Hillary has also picked a one syllable running mate and the opposing ticket is two one syllable surnames in Trump-Pence. I doubt there is any predictive power but it is just intriguing.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Imagine wanting a referendum on EU membership. Soz Dan, maybe you'll get a job as a border guard from your pals.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
It's calming down as far as I can see. Brexit is off the front pages of all the International current affairs sites I visit, though I'm sure there will be domestic Brexit refuseniks for years to come.
It's now a question of waiting and hoping for more clarity around Mrs May's koan 'Brexit means Brexit'. While I understand her reasons, it's not terribly helpful.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Knowing Hannan it's more likely he's talking to remainers in the wrong way, or even more probably he is just talking at them.
Boris just tweeted another condemnation (Kabul this time). He's really getting the hang of this, sadly. Please stop giving him opportunities to practice, world. Thanks.
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Wait until after the autumn statement. The polls are funny during the summer all the Tories are on holiday or stuck in traffic in Dover.
If by that time there are clear signs of recession I think it unlikely that the Tories will benefit!
Because parties considered weak on the economy and weak on leadership benefit from economic turbulence....
Oh, wait....
Yes but a Government that has been in office for over six and a half years will be at least partly blamed for that. The collapse of Osborne's 'Plan' and any Hammond U turn will not add to its credibility and will make it increasingly vulnerable to attack.
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
8000 years is a blink.of an eye. Sea levels can and will change dramatically again in the future. Any policy based on trying to prevent sea level change as opposed to mitigating against it is doomed to failure. Although not directly related to global sea level change New Orleans is a good example of the futility of trying to prevent natural processes I order to protect poorly placed settlements.
It is less than that - the land bridge to europe only went about 6,000 years ago.
Of course as well as sea level changes, various land masses are rising and sinking.
South east England for one is sinking as Scotland rises due to no longer being under a mile of ice
No Mr FeersumEnjineeya is absolutely right on this. The land bridge went sometime before 6000BC which is about 8000 years ago. Sea level change globally since then has been relatively slight - as it continues to be.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
The reason he's trying to recruit remainers is that he doesn't have many allies for his vision even on his own side of the Brexit debate.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Knowing Hannan it's more likely he's talking to remainers in the wrong way, or even more probably he is just talking at them.
Clearly you don't know Hannan at all. He has a reputation amongst all parties including amongst those who disagree with him of being one of the politest and most approachable of politicians.
I suspect we have to be particularly cautious about interpreting polls at present in that a change of PM almost invariably does boost the incumbent Government for at least a few weeks. I will be more interested in what they are recording by the Party Conferences. There are precedents for Oppositions performing poorly circa 15 months into a Parliament and still going on to win the following General Election. The 1959 Parliament comes to mind in that at the end of 1960 a Labour victory in 1963 or 1964 seemed unlikely based on the Tory lead being recorded in the polls. At the same stage of the 2001 Parlianent – early Autumn 2002 – Labour was still enjoying leads in the range of 8 to 15%. Despite that , barely two and a half years later Labour only managed a 3% lead at the 2005 election. I am not wishing to imply that Labour is performing at well at present , but equally the failure to do so at this point does not mean that all is lost in respect of an election 3.75 years away.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
The reason he's trying to recruit remainers is that he doesn't have many allies for his vision even on his own side of the Brexit debate.
He had lots - including I suspect the majority of MPs
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
8000 years is a blink.of an eye. Sea levels can and will change dramatically again in the future. Any policy based on trying to prevent sea level change as opposed to mitigating against it is doomed to failure. Although not directly related to global sea level change New Orleans is a good example of the futility of trying to prevent natural processes I order to protect poorly placed settlements.
8000 years may be the blink of an eye in geological terms, but it covers the entire development of human civilisation. Sea levels are a function of global temperature which, on a time scale of thousands of years, is in turn a function of greenhouse gas (especially CO2) levels. Over the past 8,000 years or so of the current interglacial, all have remained roughly constant. Were it not for the presence of human beings, we'd expect each of these variables to be gradually falling back towards ice age levels.
Instead, the rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from human activity is reducing the amount of energy radiated into space, warming the Earth and raising sea levels through thermal expansion and melting ice. A recent study of paleoclimate data indicated that the current 400ppm level of CO2 seems to correspond with a historic equilibrium sea level about 20m higher than today's level, probably due to melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. From 400pmm to 650ppm, there's not much change, but concentrations rising from 650ppm to about 1200pp cause complete melting of the Antarctic ice, giving a sea level rise of about 60m.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Knowing Hannan it's more likely he's talking to remainers in the wrong way, or even more probably he is just talking at them.
Clearly you don't know Hannan at all. He has a reputation amongst all parties including amongst those who disagree with him of being one of the politest and most approachable of politicians.
I thought his speech (in French) in the Parliament was very classy. Really showed Farage up as a boor.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Knowing Hannan it's more likely he's talking to remainers in the wrong way, or even more probably he is just talking at them.
Clearly you don't know Hannan at all. He has a reputation amongst all parties including amongst those who disagree with him of being one of the politest and most approachable of politicians.
Politeness and approachability don't preclude ideological inflexibility and maddening certitude.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Knowing Hannan it's more likely he's talking to remainers in the wrong way, or even more probably he is just talking at them.
Clearly you don't know Hannan at all. He has a reputation amongst all parties including amongst those who disagree with him of being one of the politest and most approachable of politicians.
Politeness and approachability don't preclude ideological inflexibility and maddening certitude.
If you don't like ideological inflexibility and maddening certitude, why on earth do you come to PB? Masochist ?
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Knowing Hannan it's more likely he's talking to remainers in the wrong way, or even more probably he is just talking at them.
Clearly you don't know Hannan at all. He has a reputation amongst all parties including amongst those who disagree with him of being one of the politest and most approachable of politicians.
Politeness and approachability don't preclude ideological inflexibility and maddening certitude.
I suspect we have to be particularly cautious about interpreting polls at present in that a change of PM almost invariably does boost the incumbent Government for at least a few weeks. I will be more interested in what they are recording by the Party Conferences. There are precedents for Oppositions performing poorly circa 15 months into a Parliament and still going on to win the following General Election. The 1959 Parliament comes to mind in that at the end of 1960 a Labour victory in 1963 or 1964 seemed unlikely based on the Tory lead being recorded in the polls. At the same stage of the 2001 Parlianent – early Autumn 2002 – Labour was still enjoying leads in the range of 8 to 15%. Despite that , barely two and a half years later Labour only managed a 3% lead at the 2005 election. I am not wishing to imply that Labour is performing at well at present , but equally the failure to do so at this point does not mean that all is lost in respect of an election 3.75 years away.
You also can't believe the polls during or just after the party conferences. Or during a referendum because everyone is distracted. Or in the middle of a government's term because there's always a swing back. Or, nowadays, during the election because polls don't know who will vote. Essentially, don't believe polls.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Knowing Hannan it's more likely he's talking to remainers in the wrong way, or even more probably he is just talking at them.
Clearly you don't know Hannan at all. He has a reputation amongst all parties including amongst those who disagree with him of being one of the politest and most approachable of politicians.
Oh he's polite and personally approachable but in terms of political ideas it's very much his way and no other. He isn't equipped as a persuader.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Knowing Hannan it's more likely he's talking to remainers in the wrong way, or even more probably he is just talking at them.
Clearly you don't know Hannan at all. He has a reputation amongst all parties including amongst those who disagree with him of being one of the politest and most approachable of politicians.
Politeness and approachability don't preclude ideological inflexibility and maddening certitude.
If you don't like ideological inflexibility and maddening certitude, why on earth do you come to PB? Masochist ?
You're getting close to the truth.
By the way I agree on Hannan's speech to the European parliament. I can't stand his brand of Brexitism but he's a credit to the country as a parliamentarian.
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Wait until after the autumn statement. The polls are funny during the summer all the Tories are on holiday or stuck in traffic in Dover.
If by that time there are clear signs of recession I think it unlikely that the Tories will benefit!
Because parties considered weak on the economy and weak on leadership benefit from economic turbulence....
Oh, wait....
Yes but a Government that has been in office for over six and a half years will be at least partly blamed for that. The collapse of Osborne's 'Plan' and any Hammond U turn will not add to its credibility and will make it increasingly vulnerable to attack.
But support will not be leant to Labour.
cf 1992. Largest ever vote for the Conservatives after beginning of economic turbulence.
Wasn't until Blair positioned Labour as party of economic competence that Labour won an election.
If you take away Blair from your history, as so many Labourites seem to desire, Labour have not won an election for 40 years...
Might be 50 at the rate the current opposition is going.
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
8000 years is a blink.of an eye. Sea levels can and will change dramatically again in the future. Any policy based on trying to prevent sea level change as opposed to mitigating against it is doomed to failure. Although not directly related to global sea level change New Orleans is a good example of the futility of trying to prevent natural processes I order to protect poorly placed settlements.
8000 years may be the blink of an eye in geological terms, but it covers the entire development of human civilisation. Sea levels are a function of global temperature which, on a time scale of thousands of years, is in turn a function of greenhouse gas (especially CO2) levels. Over the past 8,000 years or so of the current interglacial, all have remained roughly constant. Were it not for the presence of human beings, we'd expect each of these variables to be gradually falling back towards ice age levels.
Instead, the rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from human activity is reducing the amount of energy radiated into space, warming the Earth and raising sea levels through thermal expansion and melting ice. A recent study of paleoclimate data indicated that the current 400ppm level of CO2 seems to correspond with a historic equilibrium sea level about 20m higher than today's level, probably due to melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. From 400pmm to 650ppm, there's not much change, but concentrations rising from 650ppm to about 1200pp cause complete melting of the Antarctic ice, giving a sea level rise of about 60m.
So basically you saying agw has prevented a return to ice age but the price is coastal inundation?
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Theresa May was no more a remainer than Jeremy Corbyn was.
The independent seems to have descended into lala land on the issue though.
Wonder how long it will be before the residual online version bites the dust.
I agree. Whenever I met her, she felt and sounded like a Brexiteer.
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Wait until after the autumn statement. The polls are funny during the summer all the Tories are on holiday or stuck in traffic in Dover.
If by that time there are clear signs of recession I think it unlikely that the Tories will benefit!
Because parties considered weak on the economy and weak on leadership benefit from economic turbulence....
Oh, wait....
Yes but a Government that has been in office for over six and a half years will be at least partly blamed for that. The collapse of Osborne's 'Plan' and any Hammond U turn will not add to its credibility and will make it increasingly vulnerable to attack.
But support will not be leant to Labour.
cf 1992. Largest ever vote for the Conservatives after beginning of economic turbulence.
Wasn't until Blair positioned Labour as party of economic competence that Labour won an election.
If you take away Blair from your history, as so many Labourites seem to desire, Labour have not won an election for 40 years...
Might be 50 at the rate the current opposition is going.
I'd argue that Labour have already achieved most of their goals.
We're well into the area of diminishing returns. While there is always more to be done, much has been accomplished. Today's society is measurably better than it was in my youth in almost every single area.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
8000 years is a blink.of an eye. Sea levels can and will change dramatically again in the future. Any policy based on trying to prevent sea level change as opposed to mitigating against it is doomed to failure. Although not directly related to global sea level change New Orleans is a good example of the futility of trying to prevent natural processes I order to protect poorly placed settlements.
8000 years may be the blink of an eye in geological terms, but it covers the entire development of human civilisation. Sea levels are a function of global temperature which, on a time scale of thousands of years, is in turn a function of greenhouse gas (especially CO2) levels. Over the past 8,000 years or so of the current interglacial, all have remained roughly constant. Were it not for the presence of human beings, we'd expect each of these variables to be gradually falling back towards ice age levels.
Instead, the rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from human activity is reducing the amount of energy radiated into space, warming the Earth and raising sea levels through thermal expansion and melting ice. A recent study of paleoclimate data indicated that the current 400ppm level of CO2 seems to correspond with a historic equilibrium sea level about 20m higher than today's level, probably due to melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. From 400pmm to 650ppm, there's not much change, but concentrations rising from 650ppm to about 1200pp cause complete melting of the Antarctic ice, giving a sea level rise of about 60m.
So basically you saying agw has prevented a return to ice age but the price is coastal inundation?
Of the two, Ice age is surely the worst by far?
It's a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. IIRC, James Hansen calculated that the CO2 emissions of one large coal-fired power station would have been sufficient to stave off the return to ice age conditions. The enormous CO2 output of our modern industrial civilisation takes us far into terra incognita in the other direction.
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Wait until after the autumn statement. The polls are funny during the summer all the Tories are on holiday or stuck in traffic in Dover.
If by that time there are clear signs of recession I think it unlikely that the Tories will benefit!
Because parties considered weak on the economy and weak on leadership benefit from economic turbulence....
Oh, wait....
Yes but a Government that has been in office for over six and a half years will be at least partly blamed for that. The collapse of Osborne's 'Plan' and any Hammond U turn will not add to its credibility and will make it increasingly vulnerable to attack.
But support will not be leant to Labour.
cf 1992. Largest ever vote for the Conservatives after beginning of economic turbulence.
Wasn't until Blair positioned Labour as party of economic competence that Labour won an election.
If you take away Blair from your history, as so many Labourites seem to desire, Labour have not won an election for 40 years...
Might be 50 at the rate the current opposition is going.
The Tories won 1 election in the last 20 years, then cheered when their winner had to quit. But things are different now since the other most recent victory, most generally trust in any Western government is an inch deep, and more specifically the government can be blamed for anything anyone doesn't like about Brexit, economically or EU-relationship wise or in the migration figures, and structurally there is another party competing with the Conservatives on the right nowadays. Would you bet on Theresa May winning the biggest ever vote for the Conservatives?
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Theresa May was no more a remainer than Jeremy Corbyn was.
The independent seems to have descended into lala land on the issue though.
Wonder how long it will be before the residual online version bites the dust.
I agree. Whenever I met her, she felt and sounded like a Brexiteer.
I agree. Whenever I met her, she felt and sounded like a Brexiteer.
I think you've previously denied being David Davis. Are you in fact David Cameron?
Ha! Neither. Just by luck, Mrs May happened to turn up a bit where I was in politics. I will say no more, because it will sound as if I was important. I wasn't, but we met many times. I even was going to sit next to her for dinner 3 weeks ago but some evil witch had me ejected and she sat there instead. I don't care, but, Mrs May was having a bite to eat a metre or so away.
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
So what caused the 100 metres of sea-level rise?
Perish the thought that other variables - some known but disputed, others as yet unknown - might be at work.
The idea that the -trace element levels- of carbon dioxide have an ohms law like relationship with global average temperature is to my mind Shoeburyness (ie far beyond Barking).
Not saying there will be no effect - bell jar experiments suggest there will be - but there are far to many unknowns and unknown unknowns to have any real idea if the effect is material.
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
So what caused the 100 metres of sea-level rise?
The ice melted because of the enormous amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mainly due to filthy Sumerian power plants. You're welcome.
I agree. Whenever I met her, she felt and sounded like a Brexiteer.
I think you've previously denied being David Davis. Are you in fact David Cameron?
Ha! Neither. Just by luck, Mrs May happened to turn up a bit where I was in politics. I will say no more, because it will sound as if I was important. I wasn't, but we met many times. I even was going to sit next to her for dinner 3 weeks ago but some evil witch had me ejected and she sat there instead. I don't care, but, Mrs May was having a bite to eat a metre or so away.
The irony is, lots of politicians I know were saying to me..'ooh, please vote Remain along with me and Mrs May.' And I thought, Bollocks, she's a Leaver. As Boris was a remainer. As, DC was a Leaver! P Hammond adn Sajid, def Leavers.
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Wait until after the autumn statement. The polls are funny during the summer all the Tories are on holiday or stuck in traffic in Dover.
If by that time there are clear signs of recession I think it unlikely that the Tories will benefit!
Because parties considered weak on the economy and weak on leadership benefit from economic turbulence....
Oh, wait....
Yes but a Government that has been in office for over six and a half years will be at least partly blamed for that. The collapse of Osborne's 'Plan' and any Hammond U turn will not add to its credibility and will make it increasingly vulnerable to attack.
But support will not be leant to Labour.
cf 1992. Largest ever vote for the Conservatives after beginning of economic turbulence.
Wasn't until Blair positioned Labour as party of economic competence that Labour won an election.
If you take away Blair from your history, as so many Labourites seem to desire, Labour have not won an election for 40 years...
Might be 50 at the rate the current opposition is going.
1992 would have been a fair bit different had Thatcher not been toppled! As it was the Tories lost 40 seats, and had it it not been for Kinnock losing control of himself at Sheffield a few days before Polling Day the election would probably produced a Hung Parliament - with the Tories as the largest party. It really is nonsense to suggest that Tory Governments do not suffer electoral unpopularity at times of recession or economic slowdown. Just look at 1962 to1963 - 1971 to1973 - 1980 to 1982 and 1989 to 1992.
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Wait until after the autumn statement. The polls are funny during the summer all the Tories are on holiday or stuck in traffic in Dover.
If by that time there are clear signs of recession I think it unlikely that the Tories will benefit!
Because parties considered weak on the economy and weak on leadership benefit from economic turbulence....
Oh, wait....
Yes but a Government that has been in office for over six and a half years will be at least partly blamed for that. The collapse of Osborne's 'Plan' and any Hammond U turn will not add to its credibility and will make it increasingly vulnerable to attack.
But support will not be leant to Labour.
cf 1992. Largest ever vote for the Conservatives after beginning of economic turbulence.
Wasn't until Blair positioned Labour as party of economic competence that Labour won an election.
If you take away Blair from your history, as so many Labourites seem to desire, Labour have not won an election for 40 years...
Might be 50 at the rate the current opposition is going.
1992 would have been a fair bit different had Thatcher not been toppled! As it was the Tories lost 40 seats, and had it it not been for Kinnock losing control of himself at Sheffield a few days before Polling Day the election would probably produced a Hung Parliament - with the Tories as the largest party. It really is nonsense to suggest that Tory Governments do not suffer electoral unpopularity at times of recession or economic slowdown. Just look at 1962 to1963 - 1971 to1973 - 1980 to 1982 and 1989 to 1992.
Always a reason other than socialism is electorally unpopular, right?
The government is wasting taxpayers money subsiding useless renewables.
The government as should other governments should be spending money instead on research on methods of cheap mass storage of electricity. Once that is achieved the renewables will be of use.
Until then you need to duplicate renewables with fossil fuel power stations that fire up when the renewables are offline (eg no wind).
If you have to build the gas and coal stations anyway it is pointless to have the renewables.
Although intermittent renewable energy sources need to be backed up by, primarily, gas-fired plants, you still save having to burn gas when the wind blows or the sun shines. Granted, you can't eliminate CO2 emissions in this way, but you can reduce them. As storage methods are developed and demand management is implemented, it will be possible to further reduced the amount of fossil fuel that needs to be burned.
And what about all the CO2 emissions caused by manufacturing, building, maintaining and demolishing after decommissioning the renewables and their associated electricity transmission networks which you would not need if you just switch on the gas power stations you have to build as backup on all the time?
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Wait until after the autumn statement. The polls are funny during the summer all the Tories are on holiday or stuck in traffic in Dover.
If by that time there are clear signs of recession I think it unlikely that the Tories will benefit!
Because parties considered weak on the economy and weak on leadership benefit from economic turbulence....
Oh, wait....
Yes but a Government that has been in office for over six and a half years will be at least partly blamed for that. The collapse of Osborne's 'Plan' and any Hammond U turn will not add to its credibility and will make it increasingly vulnerable to attack.
But support will not be leant to Labour.
cf 1992. Largest ever vote for the Conservatives after beginning of economic turbulence.
Wasn't until Blair positioned Labour as party of economic competence that Labour won an election.
If you take away Blair from your history, as so many Labourites seem to desire, Labour have not won an election for 40 years...
Might be 50 at the rate the current opposition is going.
The Tories won 1 election in the last 20 years, then cheered when their winner had to quit. But things are different now since the other most recent victory, most generally trust in any Western government is an inch deep, and more specifically the government can be blamed for anything anyone doesn't like about Brexit, economically or EU-relationship wise or in the migration figures, and structurally there is another party competing with the Conservatives on the right nowadays. Would you bet on Theresa May winning the biggest ever vote for the Conservatives?
If the opposition is Jezza, and given population increases, almost certainly.
The Opinium poll does not show much sign of a honeymoon for Theresa May. On those figures, her majority would fall to just 6.
Wait until after the autumn statement. The polls are funny during the summer all the Tories are on holiday or stuck in traffic in Dover.
If by that time there are clear signs of recession I think it unlikely that the Tories will benefit!
Because parties considered weak on the economy and weak on leadership benefit from economic turbulence....
Oh, wait....
Yes but a Government that has been in office for over six and a half years will be at least partly blamed for that. The collapse of Osborne's 'Plan' and any Hammond U turn will not add to its credibility and will make it increasingly vulnerable to attack.
But support will not be leant to Labour.
cf 1992. Largest ever vote for the Conservatives after beginning of economic turbulence.
Wasn't until Blair positioned Labour as party of economic competence that Labour won an election.
If you take away Blair from your history, as so many Labourites seem to desire, Labour have not won an election for 40 years...
Might be 50 at the rate the current opposition is going.
1992 would have been a fair bit different had Thatcher not been toppled! As it was the Tories lost 40 seats, and had it it not been for Kinnock losing control of himself at Sheffield a few days before Polling Day the election would probably produced a Hung Parliament - with the Tories as the largest party. It really is nonsense to suggest that Tory Governments do not suffer electoral unpopularity at times of recession or economic slowdown. Just look at 1962 to1963 - 1971 to1973 - 1980 to 1982 and 1989 to 1992.
Always a reason other than socialism is electorally unpopular, right?
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
So what caused the 100 metres of sea-level rise?
The ice melted because of the enormous amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mainly due to filthy Sumerian power plants. You're welcome.
I thought it was increased farting by an increasing human population
I agree. Whenever I met her, she felt and sounded like a Brexiteer.
I think you've previously denied being David Davis. Are you in fact David Cameron?
Maybe he is David Davies?
He lives just up the hill from me. Nice bloke.
I'm told he likes pizza. Is there a successful Dominoes or Pizza hut near by?
Sadly no. This is the boonies. The only link to civilisation is Waitrose and an M&S food shop. We do have Costa and Pizza Express. Everything else is non-chain.You can't get any takeaways delivered locally, you have to go and fetch it. It's like being in Hell.
8000 years may be the blink of an eye in geological terms, but it covers the entire development of human civilisation. Sea levels are a function of global temperature which, on a time scale of thousands of years, is in turn a function of greenhouse gas (especially CO2) levels. Over the past 8,000 years or so of the current interglacial, all have remained roughly constant. Were it not for the presence of human beings, we'd expect each of these variables to be gradually falling back towards ice age levels.
Instead, the rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from human activity is reducing the amount of energy radiated into space, warming the Earth and raising sea levels through thermal expansion and melting ice. A recent study of paleoclimate data indicated that the current 400ppm level of CO2 seems to correspond with a historic equilibrium sea level about 20m higher than today's level, probably due to melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. From 400pmm to 650ppm, there's not much change, but concentrations rising from 650ppm to about 1200pp cause complete melting of the Antarctic ice, giving a sea level rise of about 60m.
I am afraid such calculations really are pie in the sky. There is a (completely fallacious) argument made by opponents of climate change that CO2 cannot be connected with temperature because in the past we have had far higher CO2 levels without much higher temperatures. It is an argument that ignores the myriad other factors that impact on temperature both positive and negative. The same applies to trying to link previous sea level change to CO2 levels.
The last time we had 400ppm CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere was probably at least 5.2 million years ago. The last time we had CO2 concentrations of 650ppm (to pick out your number)was probably in the Palaeogene - something earlier than 25-30 million years ago. The idea that we can pick out the fingerprint of CO2 effects on sea level over that period of time is just ludicrous. There were wholesale changes in continental positions to start with as well as any number of other factors that would have effected sea level. Such calculations are a classic example of garbage in garbage out I am afraid.
I agree. Whenever I met her, she felt and sounded like a Brexiteer.
I think you've previously denied being David Davis. Are you in fact David Cameron?
Maybe he is David Davies?
He lives just up the hill from me. Nice bloke.
I'm told he likes pizza. Is there a successful Dominoes or Pizza hut near by?
Sadly no. This is the boonies. The only link to civilisation is Waitrose and an M&S food shop. We do have Costa and Pizza Express. Everything else is non-chain.You can't get any takeaways delivered locally, you have to go and fetch it. It's like being in Hell.
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
So what caused the 100 metres of sea-level rise?
The ice melted because of the enormous amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mainly due to filthy Sumerian power plants. You're welcome.
I thought it was increased farting by an increasing human population
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
So what caused the 100 metres of sea-level rise?
The ice melted because of the enormous amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mainly due to filthy Sumerian power plants. You're welcome.
I thought it was increased farting by an increasing human population
I agree. Whenever I met her, she felt and sounded like a Brexiteer.
I think you've previously denied being David Davis. Are you in fact David Cameron?
Maybe he is David Davies?
He lives just up the hill from me. Nice bloke.
I'm told he likes pizza. Is there a successful Dominoes or Pizza hut near by?
Sadly no. This is the boonies. The only link to civilisation is Waitrose and an M&S food shop. We do have Costa and Pizza Express. Everything else is non-chain.You can't get any takeaways delivered locally, you have to go and fetch it. It's like being in Hell.
Blimey. The 1960s! I like it.
Only 90,000 people in the entire county. We're sparsely populated even for Wales. I love it. Whenever I go up to London, it's like breathing soup. Always glad to get back to the valley.
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
So what caused the 100 metres of sea-level rise?
The ice melted because of the enormous amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mainly due to filthy Sumerian power plants. You're welcome.
I thought it was increased farting by an increasing human population
Mr. D, cold's much better than heat. Easier to warm up than cool down.
Probably why most human settlements are coastal or riverine.
Drinking water (from rivers), fishing opportunities, good agricultural land and transport are also advantages. It's likely that the unusually stable (until now) climate, and hence sea level, over the last 8,000 years or so has been a major factor in the development of coastal communities and, ultimately, modern civilisation.
Sea levels were 100 metres or so lower c. 20,000 years ago than they are today.
Indeed. But over the last 8,000 years or so they've changed by no more than a couple of meters.
So what caused the 100 metres of sea-level rise?
The ice melted because of the enormous amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mainly due to filthy Sumerian power plants. You're welcome.
I thought it was increased farting by an increasing human population
That is the problem of being a vegetarian!
Don't you meat-eaters fart?
Here comes teh science bit:
Vegetarians fart more Omnivores' farts are smellier.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Theresa May was no more a remainer than Jeremy Corbyn was.
The independent seems to have descended into lala land on the issue though.
Wonder how long it will be before the residual online version bites the dust.
I agree. Whenever I met her, she felt and sounded like a Brexiteer.
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
Talking to the wrong remainers - plenty of them wanting to work on a deal. Theresa May for one.
Theresa May was no more a remainer than Jeremy Corbyn was.
The independent seems to have descended into lala land on the issue though.
Wonder how long it will be before the residual online version bites the dust.
I agree. Whenever I met her, she felt and sounded like a Brexiteer.
You've actually TOUCHED her? *Swoon*.
Did you come away cured of scrofula?
Or did you get the soul freeze of a dementor?
Well, I haven't touched her. But I tell you, me and Mrs May, we got a thing going on.
PS My dog has been found. Huzzah! I can sleep tonight.
Comments
Juppe 42 (-2) Le Pen 27 (+3) Sarkozy 24 (+4) Valls 24 (-1) Hollande 19 (+1)
Far right loon it is then.
Wonder who wrote SCOTLAB.PY?
Currently, at the same stage of the electoral cycle, Labour under Corbyn are polling 11% behind the Conservatives with YouGov.
And, in YouGov polling of Labour members, 54% of the Labour members who support Corbyn think he is likely to lead Labour to victory at the next general election.
The RSS data and the UAH data are simply different analyses of the exactly the same MSU measurements. It would therefore be rather surprising if their results weren't similar!
As for having their algorithms independently checked: bollocks. What evidence do you have for such a claim? The analysis that actually has been independently checked is the NASA GISS analysis. These data were completely re-analysed by the Berkeley Earth project, headed by former climate sceptic Richard Muller. His shock conclusion? The NASA GISS analysis is perfectly sound.
Edit: And what do you mean by verifying an algorithm?
Leeds NW: Corbyn 54 Smith 34
Milton Keynes North: Corbyn 58 Smith 22
Milton Keynes South: Corbyn 57 Smith 24
Folkestone and Hythe: Corbyn 39 Smith 11
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/756440010971283456
The government as should other governments should be spending money instead on research on methods of cheap mass storage of electricity. Once that is achieved the renewables will be of use.
Until then you need to duplicate renewables with fossil fuel power stations that fire up when the renewables are offline (eg no wind).
If you have to build the gas and coal stations anyway it is pointless to have the renewables.
When I finally do downsize, I'm going for a net zero house, just because
Oh, wait....
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/756438541719244800
@DanielJHannan: I spent today reaching out to a pro-Remain audience, suggesting we work together on a new deal. Total waste of time. They want another vote.
But as someone in the comms industry, if you want large power storage batteries in your house you are welcome to it. Expensive, Large, heavy, bulky, leach hydrogen and of dubious life duration, especially if they are not in temperature controlled conditions - basically a pain in the arse.
Of course as well as sea level changes, various land masses are rising and sinking.
South east England for one is sinking as Scotland rises due to no longer being under a mile of ice
The independent seems to have descended into lala land on the issue though.
Wonder how long it will be before the residual online version bites the dust.
It's now a question of waiting and hoping for more clarity around Mrs May's koan 'Brexit means Brexit'. While I understand her reasons, it's not terribly helpful.
At the same stage of the 2001 Parlianent – early Autumn 2002 – Labour was still enjoying leads in the range of 8 to 15%. Despite that , barely two and a half years later Labour only managed a 3% lead at the 2005 election.
I am not wishing to imply that Labour is performing at well at present , but equally the failure to do so at this point does not mean that all is lost in respect of an election 3.75 years away.
Instead, the rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from human activity is reducing the amount of energy radiated into space, warming the Earth and raising sea levels through thermal expansion and melting ice. A recent study of paleoclimate data indicated that the current 400ppm level of CO2 seems to correspond with a historic equilibrium sea level about 20m higher than today's level, probably due to melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. From 400pmm to 650ppm, there's not much change, but concentrations rising from 650ppm to about 1200pp cause complete melting of the Antarctic ice, giving a sea level rise of about 60m.
By the way I agree on Hannan's speech to the European parliament. I can't stand his brand of Brexitism but he's a credit to the country as a parliamentarian.
cf 1992. Largest ever vote for the Conservatives after beginning of economic turbulence.
Wasn't until Blair positioned Labour as party of economic competence that Labour won an election.
If you take away Blair from your history, as so many Labourites seem to desire, Labour have not won an election for 40 years...
Might be 50 at the rate the current opposition is going.
Of the two, Ice age is surely the worst by far?
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/756952019961835520
We're well into the area of diminishing returns. While there is always more to be done, much has been accomplished. Today's society is measurably better than it was in my youth in almost every single area.
The idea that the -trace element levels- of carbon dioxide have an ohms law like relationship with global average temperature is to my mind Shoeburyness (ie far beyond Barking).
Not saying there will be no effect - bell jar experiments suggest there will be - but there are far to many unknowns and unknown unknowns to have any real idea if the effect is material.
It really is nonsense to suggest that Tory Governments do not suffer electoral unpopularity at times of recession or economic slowdown. Just look at 1962 to1963 - 1971 to1973 - 1980 to 1982 and 1989 to 1992.
The last time we had 400ppm CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere was probably at least 5.2 million years ago. The last time we had CO2 concentrations of 650ppm (to pick out your number)was probably in the Palaeogene - something earlier than 25-30 million years ago. The idea that we can pick out the fingerprint of CO2 effects on sea level over that period of time is just ludicrous. There were wholesale changes in continental positions to start with as well as any number of other factors that would have effected sea level. Such calculations are a classic example of garbage in garbage out I am afraid.
Vegetarians fart more
Omnivores' farts are smellier.
Or did you get the soul freeze of a dementor?
PS My dog has been found. Huzzah! I can sleep tonight.